Challenging medical board decisions requires substantial evidence of procedural errors; the standard for fitness must ensure rigorous and fair assessments.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the findings of the initial Medical Board and the Review Medical Board dated 14th September 2021 and 15th September 2021 respectively, whereby petitioner has been declared medically unfit for appointment as Constable (Driver) in the ITBP.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was examined in haste by the doctor in the Review Medical Board and declared unfit on account of `defective colour perception CP-IV'. He states that during the Ishihara test, i.e the test for colour vision/blindness, the Petitioner was hardly given three seconds per plate as opposed to the standard five seconds time given per plate.

4. He further contends that even though the impugned review medical unfitness certificate shows the signature of three doctors, yet at the time of medical examination, only one doctor i.e. Dr. Niraj Kumar was present.

5. He also emphasises that in a similar writ petition being W.P.(C) No.12556/2021 arising out of the same Review Medical Board, this Court has already issued notice.

6. Admittedly, both in the initial Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board, the Petitioner's vision has been found to be defective. This Court finds that an Eye Specialist was a part of the Review Medical Board that examined the Petitioner.

7. The argument that the petitioner was hardly given three seconds per plate as opposed to the standard five seconds time per plate does not inspire confidence as it is not the petitioner's case that he was sitting with a stop watch in his hand during the Review Medical Board. Further, the colours in the slides should have been identified by the Petitioner in a split second especially if he wishes to be employed as a driver at the Indo-China border, which has one of the most difficult terrains and roads.

8. The allegation that the doctor was in hurry or that only one of the Doctors had examined the petitioner is not only contrary to the Review Medical Board documents placed on record by the Petitioner, but is also not borne out in any contemporaneous letter written by the Petitioner.

9. Further, this Court clarifies that it has issued notice in W.P.(C) 12556/2021 as the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12556/2021 is a serving employee of ITBP, who according to the averments in the said writ petition is being medically examined every year. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12556/2021 had been found to be having good vision by the Review Medical Board despite a contrary opinion by the doctor in the initial Medical Board. In fact, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 12556/2021 had been rejected by the Review Medical Board on the ground that he was suffering from Fistula and not on account of defective colour vision. Consequently, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 12556/2021 and the present writ petitioner are not similarly placed.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application being bereft of merit is dismissed.